‘My only son was shot standing up for justice’ – inside city gripped by deadly protests in Pakistan-administered Kashmir
The BBC gained rare access to Rawalakot in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, where weeks of clashes between security forces and protesters from the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) have left dozens dead. The unrest matters because it is unfolding during ongoing regional elections and has left the makeshift clinics doctors like the pseudonymous "Dr Anwar" running unable to cope with the volume of gunshot casualties, while grieving families accuse authorities of firing live rounds on demonstrators demanding basic rights.
Since 27 July, Dr Anwar's clinic alone has treated 50 to 60 critically injured patients, with most of the dead and wounded reportedly aged between 15 and 35; protesters say they avoid the main hospital for fear of arrest. JAAC says its grievances centre on affordable flour, electricity prices, education and healthcare, and that an October agreement with the Pakistan and PAK governments has not been implemented, while the local government insists the group is armed, banned since June, and accused of disrupting the polls and blocking roads into the regional capital, Muzaffarabad. With internet access cut and roads restricted, independent verification has been difficult, but the BBC spoke to several bereaved families in Rawalakot, including relatives of young men killed while protesting.
- Deadly protests in Pakistan-administered Kashmir have killed dozens since late July
- Clinics overwhelmed; injured fear going to hospital amid crackdown
- JAAC and authorities dispute causes amid elections and internet blackout
New here? Start with this
Rawalakot sits in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, a region controlled by Pakistan but claimed in full by India. For weeks it has been the scene of violent confrontations between security forces and demonstrators, leaving dozens of people dead and overwhelming local doctors treating a steady stream of gunshot wounds.
The protests are led by the Joint Awami Action Committee, a coalition known as JAAC that has campaigned on everyday economic and social concerns, including the price of flour and electricity, and access to education and healthcare. It says a deal it struck with the Pakistani and regional governments last October was never carried out. The authorities, meanwhile, describe JAAC as an armed group that has been banned since June and blame it for blocking roads and disrupting elections currently taking place in the region.
The clashes matter because they have turned deadly, with most of the casualties reported to be young people, and because they are unfolding alongside restrictions on internet access and movement that make it hard for outsiders to verify what is happening on the ground. The BBC's reporting from Rawalakot offers one of the few independent accounts of the toll the unrest is taking on the city and its residents.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for the protesters argue that JAAC represents ordinary residents pressed by genuinely hard economic conditions – the cost of flour, electricity, education and healthcare – and that they were promised redress in an October agreement which has since gone unimplemented, leaving demonstration as the only recourse. From this view, a state response involving live ammunition against unarmed civilians, internet blackouts and restricted access to hospitals for fear of arrest represents a disproportionate and rights-violating crackdown that silences legitimate grievance rather than addressing it, particularly troubling given how many of the dead and injured are young.
The case against
Those defending the authorities' position argue that maintaining public order and the integrity of an ongoing regional election is a legitimate governmental duty, and that a group officially banned since June and alleged to be armed cannot simply be treated as a peaceful civic movement, especially where roads into the regional capital have been blocked and polls disrupted. On this view, security forces face a genuine threat requiring firm measures to protect the electoral process and prevent wider unrest, and restrictions on information flow may be framed as necessary to prevent escalation in a volatile and difficult-to-verify situation.